End Red State Welfare

An earlier diary mentioned this idea, then slid down the page. The idea comes from Angry Bear:

"I also have a substantive recommendation to the Blue states: Do all that you can to shut off the spigots. Completely. Shut it down. All of it. No more sucking on the government's teat for the Red states. Transform the rhetoric of your Republican brothers into practice: Slash federal spending (is that still a Republican position?). Wipe out the farm subsidies. Eradicate all block grants to the states. End the transfer of thirteen cents out of every Blue State Tax Dollar to the Red states (call it "Real Welfare Reform".) Replace every dollar of reduced federal spending with a dollar of in-state spending."

Previous diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/142836/638

•  Brilliant

  by hyperbolic pants explosion on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:16:18 PM PDT

  •  Let them feel the rod.

    They have their mandate and the American poeple should get what they deserve.

    The fundamental moment when this race was lost was when congressional Democrats successfully blocked Bush's attempt to limit overtime pay.

    Although those limits would have terribly hurt many real people it kept the Middle Class from seeing how threatened they are by Bush.

    We should not obstruct the Republican agenda; this only helps carry their water. The people have chosen and I say that we should let them have it; this is the only way that Americans will learn.

    It took the Great Depression for America to wake up in the 30's and embrace Liberalism. Americans forgot these lessons and they need to deeply suffer this lapse.

    They need to feel the rod they have chosen this for themselves; let them hemorrhage their losses.

    by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:56:20 PM PDT

    •  I hope they ban abortion.

      I want them to ban IVF and stem cell research. I hope they halt public education, stop unemployment insurance, end food and drug regulation. Please send our son and daughters to die in perpetual war. Kill Medicare and stop medicaid. Please privitize Social Security. Terrorize our people with fear of foreingers or anyone who is differnt and please shrink our goverment "to the size you can drown it in the toilet." End the New Deal and ruin the Great Society. This is the goverment our people deserve. Let them wallow in their ignorance and poverty.

      I will not obstruct the Republican agenda but I will work to build a grass roots media made up of citzen opinion journalist who will tell the truth about their agenda.

      by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:06:11 PM PDT

      •  on ending welfare

        Consider working to stop tax deductions for religious organizations.  
        

        by LuckyLu on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:13:58 PM PDT

        •  Problem...

          Problem with legislative agendas is that we don't control the legislature.

          I think we start with blue state legislatures.  Lots of things we can do to stick it to the man there.  I'm thinking of marijuana initiatives on the California ballot, I'm thinking of challenging the federal government's role in schedule II narcotics enforcement based on the takings clause and state's rights, I'm thinking of attaching a rider to a bill that other than the District of Columbia, states should only be able to get out of the welfare system what they put in, I'm talking about giving tax breaks to companies that get rated on a progressive scale.

          In short, I'm talking about economic warfare.

          by TexasDemocrat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:40:36 PM PDT

          •  Yeah this is true

            we DON'T control the legislature so, although I would like to see this happen, it ain't ever gonna.

            by SteveLCo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:49:32 PM PDT

          •   a fellow Texan

            Yes we do not control congress but remember the farm bill could not have passed with out half the votes comming from Democrats.

            It is against republican principles to vote handouts. These red state people need us.

            BTW, here is a listing of farm subsidies

            Farm subsidies database

            In case the link doesn't work it's
            www.ewg.org/farm

            by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

        •  VERY IMPORTANT

          They're going after the NAACP for electioneering but what about all the churches that tell their members how to vote? We have a guy that works for us at $10.00 per hour and had no reason to vote Bush but that the church told him to.

          by kycole on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:31:54 AM PDT

      •  I do not have a link

        But on Air America today a caller said that he had seen a couple of maps in Newsweek

        One showing the read and blue states --

        The other showing all the soldiers that have died - what states they came from for the most part -- it was the blue states.

        We not only pay for you - we bleed for you - and we die for you.

        by sara seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:32:48 PM PDT

        •  interesting about the soldiers

          but I wonder about the percentages relative to the size of the population in each state?

          by mimi9 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:05:26 PM PDT

        •  And we take the hits

          All of the terrorist acts, plots and threats have been against blue state big cities, NY, DC, LA, SF, Chicago.  We will most likely also take the almost inevitable retaliation for the invasion of Iraq and the killing of 100,000 women, children, and men.

          by eyeswideopen on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:51:47 PM PDT

          •  Not just because landmark targets are there

            It's because what the terrorists most hate is precisely what makes us not be republicans: tolerance, openness to new ideas, an embrace of secular life (whether we are individually religious or not). Islamic fundamentalists fear the spread of this culture to where they live. It is the same fear that Rove exploited in rural Ohio.

            by nedog on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:54:21 PM PDT

            •  What the terrorists are really

              going after is our economy, AQ especially. That is the basis for our power in the world. And they know, just as the people in this thread do, where it is concentrated and created in this country.

              by Rocket on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:18:13 AM PDT

            •  "They hate us for our freedoms"

              What complete and utter crap.

              I think it's clear that the terrorists are responding to our actions in the Middle East. Has nothing to do with 'freedom.'

              That said, ending Red State Welfare is an excellent idea.
               

              by drgardner on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:34:59 AM PDT

              •  The Cracker Belt hates us

                for our freedoms and our culture; they don't want our handouts.

                Let them do without for a time.

                by BartBoris on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:32:21 AM PDT

                •  I live in the so-called Cracker Belt

                  and I and all my family voted for Kerry. Remember that we aren't all idiots in Kentucky- just enough to re-elect that jerk Bunning!

                  by kycole on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:34:08 AM PDT

                •  I live in the so-called Cracker Belt

                  and I and all my family voted for Kerry. Remember that we aren't all idiots in Kentucky- just enough to re-elect that jerk Bunning!

                  by kycole on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:34:38 AM PDT

            •  so OBL

              would really be happy if America became as intolerant and repressive as many muslim countries?

              Sounds about right. So G.W.Bush's strategery is to take away our freedoms so OBL can no longer hate us for our freedoms.

              by JamesK on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

        •  Iraq Casualties by State

          Sara,

          I didn't find the exact link you spoke of on Newsweek but I did find an extremely thorough casualties site. Your statement appears to be correct.

          http://icasualties.org/oif/

          by hayless on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:42:34 AM PDT

      •  don't blame the people!

        
        I share your rage, man.  But these cuts will hurt innocent people.  In saying that Americans deserve to suffer for their foolishness ignores the fact that close to 50% of Americans stood in long lines and wanted desperately to (re)defeat Bush.

        And maybe it was even more than 50%, if the speculation about Diebold is on the mark.

        Also, if education suffers it'll be even harder --in the long term-- to win hearts and minds to our side.  The Republicans, on the other hand, will only grow stronger as the population gets progressively more and more ignorant.

        by Nate Roberts on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:56:43 PM PDT

        •  The homeland security budget

          ...has also been lavished on red states that don't need it.  The blue states are where the terrorist targets (NY, DC, LA, SF, Chicago) are, and we're closing hospitals.  How will we deal with an attack?  Meanwhile, Alaska's considering buying a nice new governor's jet like Airforce One with their windfall.

          by eyeswideopen on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:56:31 PM PDT

        •  They are laughing.

          I moved to a red state a couple years ago, and they think it is a joke.  They don't want the money, but they'll take it, with contempt for us in the process.

          Let me tell you, they know they don't put in, they won't raise their own state taxes, it just gives them an excuse to do nothing.  Like Mexico.  When ever there's problems in Mexico, they send their people North.  They don't reform, they do not bother to help the economy or the poor.  The Blue states need to expand, people need to support their own, and when the recession hits from the skyrocketing deficit hits, at least those states will have the buffer.

           I can assure Fed funds are NOT appreciated in MS, unless they go to company, or organization, or a defense contractor (they have dozens here).

          by lilorphant on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:27:04 AM PDT

        •  Honestly ...

          Screw them.  When I was a kid, Mom and Dad made the money, so they set the rules.  Why can't we have that in America?  

          I make my own money, and I pay a lot of it out in taxes. I can't afford to keep giving it away like this.  I live in an area with a high cost of living.  I have compassion for others, but if they insist on voting in a way that makes me less safe, places me further into debt, provides me with good healthcare but I have to pay a large portion of my salary to get it, and puts their nose into my business via the Patriot Act and whole gay-marrige thing.

          Sorry, but when I hear claims that America's soul is on the heartland, real values, all that crap, I can't help but wonder if taking care of your own and hard work are values in the red states.  

          These people are innocent?  They aren't innocent.  They chose to vote that way.  If the people who voted for Bush don't realize those ramifications, it isn't my job to explain it nicely.  Frankly, I'm too busy staying out of debt, and they probably think I have too much foam on my nose from my latte to take me seriously anyway.  

          50% of the population voted for Kerry and live in a red state?  Well, then they need to either move to a blue state, or talk to their friends and neighbors about why Bush had Bad Idea written all over him.

          We aren't going to win unless we can win over those red states.  And they don't want to hear it from me.  It all has to come from the people they know, they people they respect.  

           
          Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

          Monday, September 27, 2004

          The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

          The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

          States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

          D.C. ($6.17)

          North Dakota ($2.03)

          New Mexico ($1.89)

          Mississippi ($1.84)

          Alaska ($1.82)

          West Virginia ($1.74)

          Montana ($1.64)

          Alabama ($1.61)

          South Dakota ($1.59)

          Arkansas ($1.53)

          In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
          States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

          New Jersey ($0.62)

          Connecticut ($0.64)

          New Hampshire ($0.68)

          Nevada ($0.73)

          Illinois ($0.77)

          Minnesota ($0.77)

          Colorado ($0.79)

          Massachusetts ($0.79)

          California ($0.81)

          New York ($0.81)

          Two states -- Florida and Oregon
          (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
          quotebox

          by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:39:35 AM PDT

          •  true, but. . .

            Sorry, but when I hear claims that America's soul is on the heartland, real values, all that crap, I can't help but wonder if taking care of your own and hard work are values in the red states.

            Exactly.  I couldn't agree with you more.  And I also accept your point that it was less than 50% of the people in the red states who voted against Bush and so clearly a majority are not innocent.  

            But what about the minority who passionately wanted to throw Bush out?  So what if it was only 20% who voted against Bush in those states?  Do they deserve to be pubished just because they live in red states?  To me that smacks of collective punishement (though I admit that's a bit too strong of a term).

            Don't get me wrong; I'm all for punishing the guilty ones.  We've just got to do it in a way that targets the right people.

            I actually had an idea about goading conservative Bible thumpers to sign onto a list of people who pledge that if they ever find themselves in any kind of medical crisis they will not accept any medical intervention that was made possible by the use of stem cell research.

            It would be kind of like an organ donner card, and would be permanently attatched to their medical record (until, of course, they had second thoughts when confronted with the consequences of their "moral" stance.

            Let's force them to put their own precious asses where their mouths are!

            by Nate Roberts on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:50:55 PM PDT

            •  re:

              But what about the minority who passionately wanted to throw Bush out?  So what if it was only 20% who voted against Bush in those states?  Do they deserve to be pubished just because they live in red states?  To me that smacks of collective punishement (though I admit that's a bit too strong of a term).

              The minority who passionately wanted to throw Bush out should talk to their friends and neighbors about why Bush's policies are bad for them, economically and morally.  They need to make the sale for us - apparently we are doing something wrong when we speak to these people.  If they can't convince people that it is time for a change, then why would they want to continue to live in a state that subsists on the dole, takes away rights and freedoms from several groups, and enacts bigoted laws?

              This isn't about vengance.  It is about taxation without representation.  I send a large chunk of money to Washington, but I don't get to elect the president.

               

              by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:09:56 PM PDT

            •  Education

              Form your original post:

              Also, if education suffers it'll be even harder --in the long term-- to win hearts and minds to our side.  The Republicans, on the other hand, will only grow stronger as the population gets progressively more and more ignorant.

              This speaks to a larger problem:  What can we do with all of the people, living in these larger rural (red) states, whose economic future is decidedly bleak.  The manufacturing jobs are disapearing, and I think it is a matter of time before we lose them permanently (unless some worlwide labor standards are changed pronto).  There are only so many high-tech jobs to go around.  I fear our service based economy will be unstable in the long term.

              In the meantime, this population is getting older, prisons are filling, divorce rates skyrocketing.  

              I would love to see more tax breaks for companies like New Balance, who keep at least some manufacturing jobs here.  We need to start producing regional goods again (even things like quilts and furniture).  Organic, local farming.  Invest in public works - keeping things green, building new areas.  If we can become the best place to build an alternative fuel car, and keep that market hot through international environmental standards treaties, we could produce a big enough labor boom to prolong this for a while.  

              Ignorance can go both ways.  I think if we remove the dependence on the federal system, the changes that we need economically can happen.  The states are forced to be independent and survive on their own.  

              If we don't kick the kids out of the nest soon, before we know it they'll be 40 and living in the basement.

              by muffilator on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:42:21 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        I don't hope they do this.

        However, it would be nice if they starting seeing this in the red states.  The REAL Republican agenda.  Maybe the rest of the nation will wake up then.

        by Unstable Isotope on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:38:52 PM PDT

      •  But...

        They were counting on us to stop them so they wouldn't have to own the hate that is their agenda!

        by stephdray on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:48:04 PM PDT

      •  They made their own country once

        they christened it "Jonestown."

        See all those white spots? Those are murdered children and suicidal adults. These, my kossak friends, is the fruits of religious extemism.

        

        by skallas on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:54:07 PM PDT

      •  Covertly Support Red State Campaigns for ...

        Subsidized home schooling!  Make them unfit for any modern business!

        Censorship!  Ban any TV, movie or books that do not conform with the Talibaptist Mullahs!

        Establish State Religions!  Give Scalia and Thomas their wish!  The weirder and fundier, the better!  I'd love to see a campaign in which the Talibaptists and the pentacostalists battle for supremacy, with Mormons serving as the Naderite spoiler!

        Force fertile women to bear children!  The more the merrier!

        Criticize any request by these states for farm aid, subsidies as welfare and big government!

        Make gun ownership and carrying mandatory!

        by h0db on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:10:10 PM PDT

        •  Homeschooling

          Do you actually KNOW any homeschoolers? There is a large and thriving progressive homeschooling movement, and my family is part of it. If you met my kids you'd like them. They're smart, well-behaved, articulate and funny. Not all homeschoolers are fundamentalist conservatives. A lot of us homeschool for very secular reasons.

          by LynnS on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:33:22 AM PDT

      •  That grassroots media exists

        Indymedia.org

        by gypsy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:45:55 PM PDT

    •  yes indeed bartboris

      i have been thinking this. let them reap the whirlwind, as it were. our 45 senators should sit on their hands and not say a peep. you bought it, you got it, baby.

      and i live in red oklahoma. fuck'em. i have nothing but contempt for these hillbilly neanderthals at this point.

      know whats weird? i hang out with a group of trial lawyers here and they are all bush people. WTF?

      by maskling11 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:04:52 PM PDT

      •  Striking down Roe

        won't limit access to abortion in New England. It will hurt people in OK and AL. Let them reep what they have sown.

        Federal Flat Tax now.

        by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:37:55 PM PDT

        •  Wrong

          Striking down Roe will make it possible to pass a federal law banning abortions. How hard do you think that would be in the current environment?

          by Aguas de Marco on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:14:57 PM PDT

          •  I think that would be pretty hard to do actually

            I think federally, the people would scream.

            by stephdray on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:53:04 PM PDT

          •  Really?

            A striking down of Roe, unlikely as it still is, would most likely be framed and sold like a states' rights issue.

            A federal law against first term abortions will be very difficult to uphold, as all rights "not enumerated in this constitution is retained be the states and the people".

            by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:26:05 AM PDT

            •  aoeu

              "Abortion is not a right."

              Scalia in 5 words.

              by TealVeal on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

              •  Sure

                Sure. That's the point.

                But, according to Scalia, making decisions on moral questions, through the state legislature, is.

                by PoliticGeek Pro on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 01:47:00 PM PDT

      •  The dKos Okie Contingency

        It's interesting that, as conservative as OK is, there are so many of us Okies here on dKos.  I suspect it's because we're all using dKos as a lifeline. :)

        Charles from OKC

        by ckerr on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:25:41 PM PDT

    •  We had to destroy the village...

      in order to save it.

      It's rather interesting that we can sometimes justify the suffering of innocent people to serve our own ends.

      by GorgeousOrifice on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:11:52 PM PDT

      •  innocent?

        This would be true if they were innocent but they are not, they vote republican.

        My county was 77% bush and one of the top farm subsidy receiptant counties in the state of Texas.

        by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:49:52 AM PDT

  •  What can we do now to start this?????

    How do we go down this road? How do we start down this road? we need a mouthpiece. Is there any Senator or Rep out there that can start this? Can the blog world band together and push this as an agenda item for 2006?

    Dem's can run in the South touting the Moral Value of increasing federalism in the US. Overturn Maubury vs. Madison. Overturn the whole entire court.

    The Republicans are trending in this direction. Deals can be brokered. If the Blue states want to seperate tax bases, then the reds can have their cultural fanaticism. Mississippi state religion can be there, if Massachusetts can keep 100% of it's tax dollars.

    How do we start this? This may be the single issue that sweeps the Dem's and the nation to victory in 2006.

    by Steven R on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:09:12 PM PDT

    •  the mantra

      repeat after me, "Massive Middle Class Tax Cut."

      5 words no rethug can resist.

      by JamesK on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:12:57 PM PDT

      •  Doesn't Work

        You know the GOoPers think the middle class is made up of households earning better than $200K/year ...

        by wystler on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:44:32 PM PDT

    •  call it "State Sovereignty"!!!

      Not Red State Welfare. That'll never pass muster.

      AND Bundle it with the Fundie Dominionist "starve the beast" bullshit.  The far left and far right will come together on this issue and get 60% majorities.

      It would completely reshape the US.  Each state dictates everything in their territory. The dictate intry and exit. They dictate commerce passage. End Free Interstate Commerce.

      Allow conditions of entry. State Identification and travel could be restricted.

      All this crazy right winger shit they would lap up in a second. Think about it. They could scare the hell out of the minorities until they leave and go to the blue states, and the Red's in the Blue states would flock to the bastions of Conservatism in the south.

      The only federal government we'd need is the Treasury Department and the Defense Department. National Taxes would be 5% flat Tax, maybe even less. No IRS. No Personal Income Tax. No SS, no Payroll.

      Business would actaully grow as each state would increase it's own competitive advantage. Farmers would be forced to get better as the gov't would no longer prop them up. End the Dept of Agriculture. End PBS. End NPR. End all of it.

      I'd love to see it happen.  Everyone would be happy if we'd be seperate.

      Trust me, you think you'd be punishing the Red States. I live in a Red State. They have no need or want for the Fed Gov't.  If you lowered people's fed taxes, you could increase state taxes by 10% and they'd pay it.

      And in the end, I'd move to Alaska, so I could live completely tax free in a Libratarian state :O )

      by Steven R on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:23:11 PM PDT

      •  In the end

        Hurting the Redshirts isn't the point.

        Preventing them from extracting unearned rent from our productive economies is.

        A lot of the GOP agenda would moderate itself, if forced to pay for itself.

        At which point detente can begin. :)

        by cskendrick on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:29:30 PM PDT

        •  Protecting the New Deal

          The idea is to protect the progress of the last century somehow.  If we just keep on trying to build a national consensus, we might lose not just the progress we made in the last century but also the productive economies that we enjoy.

          On the other hand if we draw a line in the sand at the blue states, and focus on defending all the progress of the last century just in those territories, we stand a better chance of holding the line and maybe even moving a little further forward.  California, for example, could use some of the rents it's paying to the red states lower tuition at public colleges.  

          At the same time if the red states continue on their downward spiral, our model will look better and better especially when it becomes clear to them that we've been propping up the red states this whole time.

          by madison on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:57:57 PM PDT

          •  The line must be drawn here

            The strengthening of True Federalism would do that.

            The beauty of the originally-intended model of American governance is that you can run social experiments in parallel, and states can learn from one another's successes and failures in competition with one another for immigrants, investment capital, etc.

            While rare, rational Republicans would nod their heads approvingly at this logic...and it stands the best chance of protecting the assemblage of law, custom and values that have created the wealthiest and most powerful civilization the world has ever seen.

            And, yes -- the barbarians at the gate will like what they see, and covet it. Some will amend their ways and join up. Others, alas, will hate us all the more for our success and...eek.

            Sounds like Bush rhetoric regarding 'enemies of ffffffffreeeeeedommmmmm....'

            Quick! Mouthwash!

            by cskendrick on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:03:38 PM PDT

          •  The New Deal is dead.

            Let them reap the whirlwind.

            But, we can protect civil society in our states.

            by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:43:16 PM PDT

        •  How to beat the Redneck agenda

          Look, we have lost 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections and both houses of Congress.  The long-term demographic trends are against us as the New Deal  "Greatest Generation" is dying off to be replaced by Christian fundamentalists.  The Federal government is now our enemy.  We need to radically shift gears here and support massive tax cuts, destroy social security and all Federal entitlement programs as well as the Pentagon and most importantly of all, the Department of Agriculture.  No more transfers of wealth to support the Redneck agenda.  We need to at the same time replace these programs in a Blue State confederacy--that stops just short of independence--that can provide for the needs of Blue-staters while we leave the Red states to wallow in their Redneck agenda.  Our political goals are to create a society that contains elements of European social democracy like universal health care, low poverty rates, high educational standards, four weeks vacation minimum along with high quality pre-school child care, social safety net for the elderly and disabled while at the same time maintaining traditional American values of flexibility, innovation and cultural creativity to produce a robust economy that serves the community by creating wealth and security.  We need to create powerful state militias to provide for Blue state defense, that way we have veto power over any Redneck Agenda wars of empire that the crazies in Washington may decide to embark on.

          We need to destroy the Federal government before they destroy us.
          

          by SoLeft on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:11:09 AM PDT

          •  What we are up against

            At a primitive level, human beings crave identity, preferably a positive one receiving the acclamation of peers, the deference of inferiors, and the notice of superiors.

            Love is nice, but fear and intimidation are more commonplace, and widely treated by the human ego as acceptable substitutes.

            The Republicans are going straight to the brainstem, using the back-door to the intellect to subvert the thought process, but go straight to the limbic system and bypass thought entirely.

            The goal of any party structure is the inculcation not of awareness of choice, but of loyalty. Reason is splendid, so long as it is in the service of the party.

            The mechanism for this control is the adrenaline addiction, the dependency on a stimulus of sensationalized news combined with a follow-up period of suggestion; the music flares up, the red, white and blue colors appear, the punctuated delivery of images, then the gate to the mind is wide open.

            At that point, persons long since conditioned to be received as experts provide the opinions, the near-hypnotic suggestions on what dots to connect, what thoughts to not have, what reasonable objections to dismiss with ease by remembering the following talking points.

            If it weren't so effective, it would be a wonderful plot device in a Disney movie, maybe one with a young Kurt Russell as the star.

            As it stands, it is brainwashing, it works, and it inspires loyalty -- or is it dependency -- to the source of the information...not because the information is good, but because of addiction.

            I suspect the most vulnerable persons to such treatment are those who find developing systems for understanding the news strenuous -- what some call lazy thinkers.  Figure this -- the news provides a means for not having to think about things, an efficiency that spares valuable time and brain power for other things, such as watching more news and buying more products and praying about the news and the inability to pay for more products.

            Simply put, we are up against a natural constituency of every lazy thinker in the country, and one that is made aware that the greatest threat to its political influence is reason, empiricism, good education for future generations of Americans, advancement in the sciences and heterogeneity in lifestyles and representative cultures in society.

            And, for the reverse reason, persons accustomed to or inclined to admire intellectualism, diversity, variety, exposure to the creative and the interesting and the new, and to practice such skills themselves, are relatively immune to the memetic poison that FoxNews and its ilk push alongside the offramps of the information highway.

            Frustrated at a coworker, I once muttered to a colleague "You can't fight stupid. It's like a force of nature."

            I never expected the politics of the nation to be shaped by it...but then again, stupid is a force of nature.

            Huh. How stupid of me. :)

            by cskendrick on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:47:43 PM PDT

      •  The Republic of TransCalifornia...

        plans to embargo all fresh produce shipments to Alaska. The people of TransCal decided this by referendum in 2034. TransCalians are fed up with having to pay for the exorbitant cost of ANWR crude, when they have developed cleaner and cheaper alt-fuels and have reopened their offshore reserves, having found an heretofore untapped deposit that has more sweet crude than all of Alaska.

        Also rising ocean levels, due to increasing global ambient temperatures are causing the subsidence of Alaskan coastal infrastructure. They are begging their neighbors in Canada to provide assistance, in lieu of crawling to the Confederacy core banks for junk bond financing.

        Enjoy your canned fruit living in tax-free Hyperboria!

        Nice dystopia, eh?

        by rgilly on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:33:06 PM PDT

      •  antiredistributionists

        we are against the redistribution of wealth to welfare states.

        by gina on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:35:06 PM PDT

      •  we should...

        seriously start our own organization around this.  StateSovereignty.org.  Are you interested?  We can certainly get it started on the cheap...

        by jtholland on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:56:18 PM PDT

        •  Great idea

          I think the writers of many of the posts here should move to doing this.

          I'd be interested in being one of the policy/blogger contributors, but i know nothing about running a website or starting a PAC.

          It could be a bipartisan thing, advocating both Cultural and Economic Federalism at the same time, appealing to both sides.

          It could grab those on the far right and far left with the enticement of "Freedom" to rule and live as you so chose in your own state, freedom from National Rules, freedom from National Mandates.

          We need a slogan. Maybe: "As our Founding Fathers Saw It"

          by Steven R on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:28:33 PM PDT

          •  we need a name

            I've started talking about this in other threads, but consider these:

            StateSovereignty.org

            FederalistDemocrats.org

            EndRedStateWelfare.org

            LetStatesDecide.org

            I like the last one best

            by jtholland on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:29:45 PM PDT

            •  LetStatesDecide.org

              Sounds like the Republicans came up with it. I'm all for that one.  

              BTW, if you're serious about this, email me...

              by Steven R on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:41:31 PM PDT

            •  adf

              endredstatewelfare.org

              it's got two flag words guaranteed to set the troglodyte, conservafundies' mouths drooling - "red" (i.e. "commie") and "welfare."

              the front page should, first and foremost, request donations for the cause.  it should be real enough that the "right" people "get it" and move through the site to get to the details and take action.  but it should also be disingenuous enough so that the ignorant masses think it's something it's not and gleefully pay into their own destruction.

              am i evil?  only compared to some.

              by Cedwyn on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:10:17 AM PDT

    •  Somebody call HoHo

      He's the man to push that and nobody has the ear of HoHo like the online community. I wouldn't be surprised if he liked the idea. He is the kind of guy who would love to shake things up. Make him head of the DNC (who decides this?) and let him shake things up!

      by Merkwurdigliebe on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:43:01 PM PDT

  •  yes!

    just like the classic sitcom episode formula:

    kid gets pissed cause dad sez "you live under my roof, you live by my rules" so he moves out. and a week later he sheepishly moves back in with mom and dad cause he can't afford anything, and realizes that mom and dad truly are paying his way. the only way he was able to figure that out was with actual experience.

    right. lets remind the red, republican-voting states that the dems are americas sugar daddy. we pay the bills, we pay their allowance. lets see how they vote when the state budgets get tighter and the pork stops flowing...

    by chopper on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:47:02 PM PDT

    •  Actually,

      I am in favor of the end of the federal union.  Let's establish a blue republic.

      by DCDemocrat on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:17:57 AM PDT

  •  Also send the bill

    for Iraq to the red states and left them get all their recruits and draftees for it from them as well.

    by Marie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:00:34 PM PDT

  •  Brilliant ???

    I'll tell what brilliant is!  In every "blue state" Congressional race--from 2006 on--hammer the Republican candidates for sending taxpayer dollars south and west.  All you to do is look at all money poured into Florida for those hurricanes.  Shouldn't Floridians pay back the federal government for all of that disaster aid?  NO MORE RED STATE WELFARE!

    by slip kid no more on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:44:13 AM PDT

    •  I like this idea

      It will definitely force the republicans hand and divide them...

      by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:14:44 AM PDT

•  Californians start a petition drive to leave the

  I live in a red state..
  but as a former califonian you should start one of those petition drives to leave the union or whatever else you can.

  by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:17:19 PM PDT

  •  No. Get them to move to Ohio.

    Even moving a small fraction of California people over to Ohio would tip it our way.

    As far as how to go about convincing people to do that, I have no idea.

    by lemuel on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:57:24 PM PDT

    •  Errr....

      you don't know much about Californians, do you?  We only like snow when we can ski in it and then go home to our nice, comfy, snow free house on snow free roads.  And we don't handle cold very well.  Next suggestion, please ;-)

      by dianem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:20:32 PM PDT

      •  asfd

        Florida?  Nevada?

        by JoshuaJSlone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:28:45 PM PDT

        •  Humidity, mosquitos, and Hurricanes.

          And golf shorts.  Yuck.  No wonder they're hoping for Armageddon ;-)

          by dianem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:52:35 PM PDT

      •  snow

        urrrghhh

        (shudder)

        by Angela on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:25:43 PM PDT

      •  No problem

        Due to global warming, in a few years there will be palm trees in Ohio.

        by litigatormom on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:07:04 PM PDT

      •  Cold is merely a state of mind.

        And Cleveland is beautiful in the winter (November to April)

        ;-)
        

        by pilgrim99 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:37:55 PM PDT

        •  I'm not buying this...

          I've been in Chicago in Fall and Montreal the winter.  Cold is NOT a state of mind. Although I understand that it can be quite beautiful.  You'll have to post some pictures somewhere where us Californians can admire them.  :-)

          by dianem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:47:55 PM PDT

          •  Yes, but

            Winter clothes are so stylish! You haven't seen cute 'til you've seen my white fuzzy hat with the hangy fuzzballs. I mean, really.

            by Worship Your Toaster on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:51:14 AM PDT

    •  Invite some Canadians....

      If you want to liberalize a state just recruit a few Canadians to move there. They can take the cold too! ;)

      by hughdidit on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:36:32 PM PDT

      •  Seriously...

        I wanted Kerry to win bad, but now that Bush is in I don't want to live in your trainwreck!

        by dmsdbo on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:00:59 PM PDT

      •  Uh, no thanks.

        We're gonna stay right up here where we have universal medical care, legal gay marriage in six provinces, non-draconian laws about possession of small amounts of marijuana, legal abortion, a Supreme Court with more female justices than male, and unemployment/Social Security provisions which haven't been utterly gutted.

        There was a poll done. 79% of Canadians surveyed were unhappy with the outcome of the US presidential election. Maybe the other 21% could be persuaded to move down to Ohio, but I doubt they'd be of much help to you.

        by Raincitygirl on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:16:06 PM PDT

        •  HaHa. :)

          by hughdidit on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:52:19 PM PDT

  •  no!

    It is our duty to save this country - and the world.  We need those 55 EVs!!

    by Fran for Dean on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:01:05 PM PDT

•  Let Jesus Support the Red States

  States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

  1. D.C. ($6.17)
     
  2. North Dakota ($2.03)
     
  3. New Mexico ($1.89)
     
  4. Mississippi ($1.84)
     
  5. Alaska ($1.82)
     
  6. West Virginia ($1.74)
     
  7. Montana ($1.64)
     
  8. Alabama ($1.61)
     
  9. South Dakota ($1.59)
     
  10. Arkansas ($1.53)

  States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

  1. New Jersey ($0.62)
     
  2. Connecticut ($0.64)
     
  3. New Hampshire ($0.6
     
  4. Nevada ($0.73)
     
  5. Illinois ($0.77)
     
  6. Minnesota ($0.77)
     
  7. Colorado ($0.79)
     
  8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
     
  9. California ($0.81)
     
  10. New York ($0.81)

  http://tinyurl.com/45ws7
  

  by HarveyMilk on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:17:23 PM PDT

  •  I love it!

    by rickpolitic on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:05:19 PM PDT

  •  Just a few programs would target these states:

    Let's see, they're mostly underpopulated, large, rural, and landlocked.

    So we advocate killing farm subsidies, road funding, and water projects.  You do notice how the Republicans don't seem to have problems with those?

    by randompost on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:19:28 PM PDT

    •  Federal Flat Tax Now!

      End Red State Welfare.

      We will build local and state civil societies.

      Let our Red State cousins rot.

      by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:37:34 PM PDT

    •  Federal Flat Tax Now!

      End Red State Welfare.

      We will build local and state civil societies.

      Let our Red State cousins rot. The era of big goverment is over.

      Fuck them hard.

      by BartBoris on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:38:39 PM PDT

      •  Maybe, but

        The blue states would still have the largest share of the tax burden, as that is where most of the highest wage earners live and largest corporations are headquartered. Regardless of tax structure, this needs to be addressed on the federal outlay side.

        by gattogrosso on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:55:51 AM PDT

    •  Do agricultural subsidies

      really make the biggest difference there?

      by theprogressivemiddle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:05:16 PM PDT

      •  Farm Subsidies

        You had better believe they are the lifeblood of the red states. I'm a farmer and have been receiving them.

        The problem is the most money goes to the very large farmers and in the long run doesn't help the small farmer much.

        Its the combination of farm subsidies and Southern Baptist that turned my county red with bush getting 77% of then vote. A neighboring county with same population an agriculture base voted 89% for Bush.

        You bet it can cripple these right wing ungrateful bastards.
        

        by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:33:52 AM PDT

      •  Farm Subsidies

        Also check out linked text, most of the top subsudy receiptants are huge farmers in rural counties.

        by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:35:55 AM PDT

    •  hurricane relief

      hurricanes are an act of god, hurricanes hit god's country.  Let god pay for the cleanup.

      by unterhausen on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:15:03 PM PDT

    •  Road Funding has other benefits

      Road funding is brilliant. Not only is it a subsidy, but it encourages car traffic and sprawl. Let's stop building roads and make the country greener.

      As an added benefit, it would hurt the oil based economy in Texas.

      by Aguas de Marco on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:22:50 PM PDT

  •  Give...

    the Dakotas, New Mexico, and Alaska back to their original residents.

    by tully monster on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:56:31 PM PDT

    •  Dude

      My county in New Mexico gave Kerry almost 70% of it's votes to Kerry.  How did your county in your state do?

      We bust our collective asses and then get demonized on dKos?  Thanks a lot.

      by claude on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

      •  Well, then...

        you would be living in a blue state, too.

        (Actually, this comment was a response to one below it which advocated seceding from the red states and letting them wallow in their misery and squalor.  But I'd hate to see that happen to New Mexico.)

        by tully monster on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:31:43 PM PDT

      •  Selective embargo

        And True Blue areas such as your county will get preferential exemptions.

        All Blue America business with New Mexico can route through your town, its people. its business.

        It's money.

        Your Redshirt neighbors will come to you. You'll be relatively better off.

        Full disclosure

        I'm in a Blue enclave in a red state, myself. :)

        by cskendrick on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:34:03 PM PDT

        •  Just declare yourselves as...

          a free city, join with other "right, reality thinking" autonomous zones, something along the lines of the Hanseatic League in the Baltic.

          e.g., The Grand Duchy of Austin, TX!

          by rgilly on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:38:22 PM PDT

          •  The real trick, I've since learned

            Is how to recognize who is blue and who is red?

            The best, most efficient, most peaceful, and most just solution is True Federalism -- putting into actual practice the devolution of authority to state, even local communities.

            Perhaps the solution is to ditch not the Red states, but "the states!"

            by cskendrick on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 04:07:42 AM PDT

      •  I live in St. Louis City

        In went to Sen. Kerry over 80%. It would be interesting to get the breakdown

        by mskadij on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

        •  Red v. Blue, Urban v. Rural

          It seems to me this metaphorical civil war we're having in this country isn't just between the "Red states" and "Blue states," but even more between the urban and rural counties. If you look at the vote breakdown by the county this usually shows itself to be true.

          E.g., in blue New Jersey the farm counties in the west - Sussex County, et al, are Red, not Blue. Hudson County, which includes Jersey City, is of course Blue. As always there are some exceptions: Red cities such as Cincinnati, and Blue rural counties..

          Important to note this info before we effectively strike back at the dullards who voted for the worst president in US history. We are of course members of that new US elite minority: The "Fact-Based" community.

          by assyrian64 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:23:42 PM PDT

          •  Quite true

            One votes for a Republican for fifteen minutes before one goes back to satisfying one's pig, doggie style. What a lovely menagerie Red America is.
            

            by Smallbottle on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:30:08 PM PDT

      •  Leave.

        My county gave 70% as well, and that's 1.4 million Kerry votes.  Although I feel for you, abandon state.  Your presence there gives the Republican majority more power, because they can (despite the fact that you don't agree with their politics) use your presence for political power.  Unless you can convince enough blue voters to come to your state to make the entire state turn blue, politically your best move is to move to a state that's already blue.

        by sub version on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:45:36 PM PDT

        •  We have been blue for a long time

          New Mexico has always been blue and quite progressive. It's only recently that enough outsiders have moved in to turn the tide. Meanwhile, the state gov't is thoroughly Blue, starting with Bill Richardson.  I can't move; after thirty-three years here, I've grown roots too deep.  No way do New Mexicans give up and leave this special place to the thugs.  They'll just pave, strip-mine and clear-cut it.

          How about some of you who are not so enamored of urban sprawl come out here and help us save this place, instead?  If you are hardy and resourceful enough to make it here, that is.

          by claude on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:04:00 PM PDT

          •  Need some good teachers?

            I've heard the schools out that way could use some help.

            by pilgrim99 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:42:09 PM PDT

          •  changing state

            Same with us here in Hawai'i. We used to be solidly Dem and moving towards passing gay-marriage rights but all kinds of people are moving in who have lots of money (and they are buying property and sending rates up so that the rest of us can't afford th taxes) and are very conservative. We have a Repug Gov for the first time in 30 years and her whole group is horrible. Ironically she is a closeted lesbian but for some reason they are perfectly happy to have her leading the charge to oppress gays. What the F is up with all the anti-gay closeted Repugs?

            by kelaguys on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 09:28:15 PM PDT

            •  their new motto should be

              "Love the sin, hate the sinner"

              by fightcentristbias on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:12:46 AM PDT

          •  To Claude in New Mexico

            I checked the New Mexico vote map and it will not hurt the pro Kerry counties to stop farm subsidies. Most of them are on the Eastern Plains.

            cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NM/P/00/index.html

            by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:32:15 AM PDT

        •  No, we should move there

          When people say they want to go to Canada, I urge them to move to a swing state instead.  we only lost this presidency by 200,000 effing votes in Ohio.

          by stephdray on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:14:57 PM PDT

          •  I'm a little more far-sighted.

            Unless you move enough people there to change the entire state, you're only helping them.  It's a lot easier for your one vote to move somewhere where that population will increase the electoral votes for an already blue state than it is to get enough people to move to a swing state to swing it; especially if it isn't a swing state, but a blood red.

            2010 Census, I want to see a reversal of the trend that's put the votes into the south, and a return of those votes to the NE, the west coast, and the (sane) Midwest (i.e. Minnesota, Illinois.)

            by sub version on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:16:16 PM PDT

            •  Woo! more EV's for California!

              Make us an even bigger, fatter blue state :D

              Even better, we'll enact that crazy idea that floats around about splitting into N. California an S. California. Then you can give us 40 EV's each! (Might wanna toss Orange County out, though, it's hopelessy red...maybe return it to Mexico?)

              by shelle on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:41:36 AM PDT

              •  Red OC

                I'd love to see the reaction in Newport, Irvine, and the Nouveau Riche southern end of OC if Mexico took it back. Of course, most of Santa Ana would be thinking "All the trouble I went through to get out of Mexico..."

                Refugee from OC

                by Royina Ista on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:05:10 AM PDT

            •  I need more data.

              How much population shift does it take to increase EV in a blue state versus how many votes did we lose a red state by.

              If we do the numbers, we can come up with the right strategy.

              My original thought was we need to move Dems to Red states, but you have a point.

              Other benefit to census shifts is redistricting -- obviously a very important issue for us as well.  

              by hillaryk on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:13:14 AM PDT

            •  & MI

              we're blue and only getting bluer

              by shelly vander on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:11:42 AM PDT

              •  Yes and no.

                I love Michigan, I grew up there, but I am so completely hateful towards all but 3 counties in that state right now (Washtenaw, Wexford, and Ingham, and it should be easy to guess why).

                You delivered Kerry, but you failed in another why, and while I can't entirely blame you (you have the Detroit black protestant vote, which is totally democratic but not necessarily all that tolerant, and of course the Dutch Reform vote on the west/north part of the state), I can't forgive Michigan for it just yet.

                by sub version on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:14:37 PM PDT

                •  true...

                  I married into the Dutch reform, well, my immediate in-laws hated it and were hippies, but still. I totally know what you're talking about, but the city of Grand Rapids went to Kerry so there's hope.  

                  by shelly vander on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 11:33:31 AM PDT

                  •  Ugh.

                    I have to go to GR right now.  Stupid Dutch Reform kids, can't they buy their own PAs rather than getting me to drive up from Chicago to loan out mine?

                    GR went to Kerry?  That gives me a little hope... but I don't even have to look to know how they voted on Prop. 2, and therefore they have at least 2 years of my hatred to look forward to.

                    by sub version on Sat Nov 06, 2004 at 11:38:12 AM PDT

      •  60%

        in Hennepin County, Minneapolis.  But the western part of the county is Bush country suburbs.  My guess is Minneapolis proper went 70 to 75%.  St. Paul actually went a little higher but thier county, Ramsey, is much smaller and consists of mostly the city, no 'burbs.

        by Aventinus on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:27:35 PM PDT

      •  Busting ass for votes

        I did the same thing in a West Texas County bordering New Mexico but got 77% for Bush. We can not fight the religious and business community. WE get absolutely no corporation from small business for sign placement or other small favors but they gladly do it for republicans.

        We are worn out, we can not turn the tide with some type of outside intervention.

        You should work Curry county a little harder. An air base, new fundamentalist churches and farmers, a republicans paradise.

        by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:41:17 AM PDT

    •  remember though

      that is 4 Dem senators.....can we lose 4 dem senators now?

      by jalapeno on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:20:24 PM PDT

    •  Give New Mexico a break

      New Mexico can stay in the new federation - the only problem is its landlocked by Red states. A shame.

      by hughdidit on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:39:15 PM PDT

      •  we love New Mexico

        i spent the fourth of july there once.  In Santa Fe.  I love that state.

        by tully monster on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 08:29:25 PM PDT

      •  It won't be about "red states"...

        ...or "blue states", but about states' autonomy, pure and simple.

        At least this is how it needs to be framed--what results after the policy is implemented will probably be largely based on red/blue lines, with the exception of Colorado (which I noticed is also a net giver), and maybe a few other red net-givers not listed in the top ten (does anyone have a table where all the fifty states stand?). Clearly today's net givers will prosper while the net takers will have to get their economic act together. But if we frame it as "red state vs. blue state" then it will sound like resentful divisiveness (yes we are resentful and are divided right now, but this would have to pass with both parties' cooperation).

        As a Libertarian (who had joined the Democratic coalition behind Kerry, and is considering joining the Dem Party), I certainly like this idea. I've always liked the idea of the "patchwork of experiments" which our founders envisioned. And I think that progressive politics can work better on a state/local level, always have. I think our "blue" states will end up teaching the "red" states a lot, and we'll likely learn a few things ourselves. And in the end, we won't be nearly as nervous about these presidential elections because the power of the Presidency will be reduced considerably, at least domestically.

        Anyway, borderline "red" states will more likely adopt progressive and socially libertarian policies than "deep red" states like Mississippi, so even in New Mexico it's all good.

        It'll be good for us as a country. It'll solve the polarization of this country to everyone's satisfaction. And we'll learn some things. Sign me up!

        by Alioth on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:52:23 AM PDT

        •  Of course the question is...

          ...will the NeoCons go for it? What with their visions of American empire, and general craving for power (the more the better).

          I think the neocon movement within the GOP must be defeated first. Hopefully by 2006 that will be underway....

          by Alioth on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:08:06 AM PDT

          •  Of course...

            ...this should be a MAJOR campaign issue in the 2006 midterms--we can get the ball moving here, starting now.

            by Alioth on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:11:35 AM PDT

            •  I agree completely

              It seems to be catching fire here.

              by Jim Beard on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:43:20 AM PDT

          •  Gold, Glory, Gospel = Imperium

            The union of corporatism and fundamentalism cannot persist. Eventually they will clash.

            One compels people to choose between values and having goods.

            The other compels people to make the same choice, only in reverse.

            However, about the one thing both agree to agree upon is neoconservatism, and as long as there is an external threat, and objective, and enemy to be conquered and exploited and means to do so, they will never, ever stop.

            It is, as the Spanish ultimately learned, a fruitless growth model.

            On the other hand, as long as there was wealth to be pirated from elsewhere, the Spanish ruled most of the New World (and a good portion of Europe) for the better part of two centuries.

            And the Romans, who had a similar game plan, ruled their corner of the planet for five hundred years.

            It can take a long time for powerfully-backed bad ideas to run their course.

            Of course, neither dissents among the Spanish nor the Romans had sufficient resources (and freedom) to get their message out. :)

            by cskendrick on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:35:16 AM PDT

        •  Take Federalism DOWN a notch

          Perhaps we should get rid of the states; have the horizontal separation of power between the national government and the districts.

          That way, Red and Blue enclaves within Blue and Red states, respectively, have some control over their lifestyles, economic choices, etc.

          It will also do less violence to the social structure of the country...much less forced migrations, buyouts of property, violence, etc.

          pause

          Hey, it's an experiment. One of myriad. :)
          

          by cskendrick on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:14:18 AM PDT

  •  Averages:

    I just took the 2003 Federal spending data from:

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

    NOT considering D.C., the average dollar spent/electral vote are:

    Kerry's States:
    $0.855

    Bush's States:
    $1.195

    (This also excludes NM and IA)

    by soudesuyone on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:41:32 PM PDT

  •  So would it be...

    ...a rational argument to say that the poor in the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar are, in fact, supporting with their tax dollars the poor in the states receiving the most federal spending per dollar?

    Assuming that it is a fair argument (and I'm not sure if it is or not - those of you more acquainted with the nuts and bolts of taxation and federal spending should let me know one way or another), then how far of a leap is it to say that the poor in places like New Jersey and Connecticut are supporting pork barrel projects benefitting large companies in states like Mississippi, where Sen. Lott is renowned for his ability to suck up federal money?

    by Devin on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:29:19 PM PDT

    •  Yep,

      the very states that whine about taxes and welfare are the ones paying the LEAST taxes and getting the MOST welfare.

      They are subsidized by the blue states who tolerate taxes and welfare, although it appears we pay more and benefit less from them. Nice, aren't we?

      by shelle on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:44:43 AM PDT

  •  Spreadsheeted the states' GSPs:

    Too drained to make it come out in a coherent graph just yet, but we took the most recent figures (2001) and worked them out:

    • Blue states' GSP (gross state product) total: 5,402,306
    • Red states' GSP total: 4,734,888

    The blue states' GSP was 14 percent higher than that of the rest states for 2001. This assumes allocating New Mexico and Iowa to the red states.

    I'd be curious to see the numbers I used incorporated into the federal spending numbers.

    http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/gsp/action.cfm

    by marisa on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:32:58 PM PDT

•